Mysteries of Interpolation(IP) Method

New Issues TF

Prepared by JAPAN

07~08 March 2018

Possible configurations

RRC

Vehicle_H Individual vehicle

Vehicle_L

1. do not apply IP method measured value

NA NA

2. apply IP method

2-1. Same tyre within IPF

class value

2-2. Same tyre on vehicle_H and _L but different tyre on individual vehicle

2-3. Different tyre on vehicle_H and _L

Mystery #1 ; NO Consistency of Tyre RRC

ACTION : make GTR more clear to have same interpretation

Mystery #2 ; 3g/km Extension from Cal. ? or Test CO2 value ?

CO

2

Cycle Energy

V_H or L Test CO2 (use measured RRC value)

V_H or L Calculated CO2

(use class RRC value)

Mystery #3 ; how to develop f0 and f2 with fixed f1 ?

F_VH = f0,H + f1,H × v + f2,H × v2

GTR describes “applying the least squares regression method” (Annex7 3.2.3.2.2.4), however, this method may be unpractical. (2nd order regression with fixed 1st order coefficient ?)

F_VL = f0,L + f1,L × v + f2,L × v2

f1,H

Mystery #4 ; adjusted f0,L and/or f2,L are bigger than f0,H and/or f2,H ?

Re-run the road-load test until f0,H and/or f2,H are bigger than f0,L and/or f2,L ?

Concept of IP method is collapsed !!!

Manufacture_A

Are there any good practical suggestions to eliminate such a ridiculous re-tests ?

Mystery #5 ; Huge Error when adjust f1,L to f1,H 3.2.3.2.2.4. Calculation of road load for individual vehicles

560A HV 690A HV 489B HV 445B HV 256B VL 256B VH 256B MT 560A MT

エンジン 2ZR-FXE 2ZR-FXE 2ZR-FXE 2ZR-FXE 2NR-FKE 2NR-FKE 2NR-FKE 8NR-FTS

T/M HV HV HV HV CVT CVT MT MT

AVE 0.3958 0.2974 0.1847 -0.2831 -0.0146 -0.1222 0.2906 0.8777

MAX 0.5976 0.4073 0.3185 0.0198 0.3117 0.2539 0.9802 1.0563

MIN 0.2013 0.0730 -0.0304 -0.5555 -0.1587 -0.4968 -0.0001 0.5113

MAX-MIN 0.3963 0.3343 0.3489 0.5753 0.4704 0.7507 0.9803 0.5450

σ 0.1545 0.1400 0.1499 0.2376 0.2191 0.3108 0.4621 0.2475

3σ片側 0.4635 0.4201 0.4496 0.7127 0.6574 0.9324 1.3863 0.7426

±3σ両側 0.9269 0.8403 0.8992 1.4254 1.3147 1.8648 2.7726 1.4853

3σ幅下限 -0.0676 -0.1227 -0.2649 -0.9958 -0.6719 -1.0546 -1.0958 0.1351

3σ幅上限 0.8593 0.7175 0.6343 0.4296 0.6428 0.8102 1.6769 1.6203

実測結果B項

N1 0.2432 0.4073 0.3185 -0.1015 -0.0950 -0.4968 0.1125 1.0563

N2 0.5976 0.3957 -0.0304 -0.4356 0.3117 -0.0597 0.9802 0.5113

N3 0.5184 0.2497 0.2900 -0.5555 -0.1587 -0.1863 -0.0001 0.9663

N4 0.5214 0.3613 0.0882 -0.3428 -0.1163 0.2539 0.0696 0.9769

N5 0.2931 0.0730 0.2573 0.0198

N6 0.3957

N7 0.2013

Possible f1 variability of same type of vehicle configurations

case study

measured R/L

= f1,H

100N !!!

However, cycle energy demand is almost identical to original one

calculated individual vehicle CO2 is OK. BUT ....

Model A B C D E F G F

f2,L

f1,L f0,L

STEP1 : change f1,L to f1,H and derive new f*0,L and f*2,L (follow GTR)

STEP2 : calculate cycle energy demand of VH or VL (follow GTR)

In case that physical test is conducted on the individual vehicle and

if [ **************************************** ],

STEP3 : re-adjust f1,V_H or L according to the next slide formula

STEP4 : then derive f0 , f2 and run the test

STEP5 : for CO2 determination, cycle energy demand shall be calculated

by using original f0,1,2 to avoid unnecessary burden.

Complicated!! but NECESSARY !!

<< applicable threshold is under the discussion (or option) >>

Cycle Energy

CED_RRH CED_VL CED_RRL

( CED_RRH - CED_RRL ) f1,V_H or L =

( CED_VH or L - CED_RRL ) * f1,RR_H + ( CED_RRH - CED_VH or L ) * f1,RR_L

f1,RR_L

f1,RR_H

f1,V_H

f1,V_L

CED_VH

speed (kph) fo

rce (

N)

Procedure to solve IPM Mystery#5

Road-Load Family Interpolation Family

RR_H CO2

f0_RRH V_H V_H

f1_RRH f0,H f0,H f0,H*

f2_RRH f1,H f1,H or f1,H_unique ←NEW

f2,H f2,H f2,H*

V_ind

f0,ind

f1,ind NO TEST

f2,ind

V_L V_L

RR_L f0,L f0,L f0,L*

f0_RRL f0_RRL* f1,L f1,L or f1,L_unique ←NEW

f1_RRL 3.2.3.2.2.4. f1_RRH f2,L f2,L f2,L*

f2_RRL f2_RRL*

CED_RRL

CED_RRH

co-

effic

ient

co-

effic

ient

Test on Dyna.

co-

effic

ient

co-

effic

ient

co-

effic

ient

co-

effic

ient

co-

effic

ient

Cycle

Energy

Demand

Tested

or

Declared

Calculated

Tested

or

Declared

co-

effic

ient

co-

effic

ient

CED_VH

CED_Vind

CED_VL

3.2

.3.2

.2.4

.

JAPAN PROPOSAL

AOM ? (Any other MYSTERIES)

1. Application document is going to be mess when 1 IP family divide into 2 IP families due to range restriction

2. .... 3. ....